Counter question; would it make any difference?

well, you're asking this question in a platform which has the sole purpose of presenting a digital representation of social interaction, so I'd say pretty fucking high.

You don't need the matrix plugging needles into the back of people's heads for the world to be a simulation. smartphones and computer screens are more than enough.

I figure that we are all definitely living in a simulation because, even if the world has real physical existence, consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain to make sense of the world.

50%. We are or we aren't.

about 3.50

it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.

Greater than zero.

You wanna tweak your melon a bit? Look up "Last Thursdayism." It's a thing — due to the way short term and long term memory work, the theory goes that anything before "last Thursday" is a lie. It's an arbitrary day of the week. The movie Dark City played off of this, when the — I forget what they were called — did their tuning and rearranged things and swapped peoples' memories around.

In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.

There is no sensible definition of probability that makes that question answerable.

A simulation wouldn't be this stupid

I mean is there any proof we don't live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don't see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don't see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn't they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don't do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick...

If simulation is not real, then that doesn't change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.

Belief in a simulation implies intelligent design of some sort, so this is, in my opinion, just a 21st century way of asking the age old question, does God exist?

If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.

And don't even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.

I don't know.

I don't know about ya'll, but from my perspective, the simulation would only have to simulate my world.

You all might not even exist.

I think this depends on how you look at it.

In a certain way, we do live in a fictional world that is constructed of information. If you consider your daily routines, they're probably following instructions of some sort to earn money, besides other things.

Both of these things - the instructions and the money - are made up. You can see this even more clearly with the money. Money itself is a piece of paper or not even that - a number in a database - that has no real value, yet people believe in it and that belief is what gives it value. In other words, the value of these numbers in databases exists in people's head more than it does in reality. Now, you could consider this a simulation, because it happens inside a computer and influences what people think.

However, i truly doubt that such a view is meaningful. No matter what is written in the databases, you still have to go through your own, individual life. I feel the biggest question you're implicitely asking is whether there could exist some kind of cheat code or glitch, like in video games, to shortcut through the world and reach your goals easier. Again, depending on how you look at it, there both are and are not such cheats.

You could consider human technology a sort of cheat. Instead of toiling on the agricultural fields ourselves, we use heavy machinery that is powered by fossil fuels, but more importantly mathematics, to do the work for us. Same goes for all other technologies. As such, the mathematics itself becomes the cheat code.

If a true cheat code would exist in today's world, you can take solace in the fact that not only you are looking for it, but so is everybody else who has an interest in achieving their goals. Now, you see, the whole economy is simply based on the concept that people want to reach their goals, and to do so, they need resources, for which they need money. So, if a cheat code existed, every single company would have a high interest in finding it and exploiting it. Since the number of people engaged with these desires is quite high, you can assume that significant progress towards that goal is continuously made whenever possible. In fact, people research and invent new things and useful tricks all the time to help us with our daily lifes. If you really wanna know more about this, you should start by studying economics, physics, and society at large. Thank you for your attention, if you have any more questions, let me know :D (i studied philosophy, i might help you)

Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.

Can't prove it, can't disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.

People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.

This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)

It is as pointless as arguing about god.

Probably about the same as for whether a god exists.

More likely than us being in the "real" base reality

I want access to the dev console then.

Well, until we see people randomly floating or chunks of the world disappearing, the answer will probably remain "who knows"

The scary thing is you just need to simulate a single brain (yours or mine). Everything else is just loaded on the fly. Like in a game. That's hard but probably not impossible. As soon as we are technically able to do something like this, chances are high that we, or I, live in a simulation.

You mean that reality might have been created by intelligent being(s)? wow.. Nobody ever thought about that one before.

I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?

Less than the odds that we are living in a false vacuum.

If it is possible to stimulate reality to this level of detail, very low. If it's possible that the simulation can then run another instance of the simulation with no loss of fidelity and that is true for any simulation within the stack, still low but much more likely than before. If the chance of this simulation existing is higher than the odds for a universe that can sustain intelligent life, then it becomes about even odds.

The people who claim otherwise are mathematicians who forgot how reality works, as they get into an infinite spiral of higher and higher odds without any basis in reality.

The reason why it gets to even-at-best is because the simulation needs to exist in a reality at some point, and it really, really stretches the imagination that someone could build this shit. So, then you're attaching the odds of intelligent life in a universe to the odds of then some intelligent life understanding literally every aspect of reality and being able to build said simulation (and then that repeats on every simulation).

On the one hand. Why. Oh why. Would anyone make the simulation so crappy. On the other hand if there was a creator god that exists outside the universe then we 100% would be a simulation compared to that gods existence.

I hope so

Also, can somebody please turn it off? I think we took this one as far as it's worth

So I guess it depends on what you understand by "simulation". What is really simulated as opossed to being "real". Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it's also a simulation of the real thing. Where's the line that makes something really "real"?

Either 100% or 0% so pascal's wager 50/50.

Just like the lottery, I either win or I lose, its a 50/50.

We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I'd say it's fairly likely.

I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there's basically no way we're in the first. Otherwise, there's a chance this is the base reality.

One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.

100%

99.999999999999999999999999999%

(Rounded)

100%, and I have - if not proof - strong evidence:

• Economics. It makes no sense, not even to experts, to such an extent þat þere's a saying: "get 4 economists in a room and you'll get 5 opinions." Þere's no-one who understands it, only people who þink þey do
• Mantis shrimp. If mantis shrimp aren't an easter egg, I don't know what is.
• Kittens. Our reactions to kittens has to be a bug, þere's no evolutionary reason why apes universally react to kittens þe way þey do.
• All of þe rules start to break down when physics got granular enough, such þat we have to invent concepts like þe Heisenberg Principle which - if you really þink about it is just a huge cop-out, like developers reclassifying bugs as "features."

But, seriously, all of physics. It was all fairly rudimentary, and it all worked, until our measurements got better, and þen it became more complex. And every time we measured more accurately, þe old models stopped being strictly correct and were had to come up wiþ even more complex models, until now we have quantum physics which is eerily like economics in þat ... does anyone really understand quantum physics? We don't even have a unified, unanimous agreement on þe rules of quantum physics, and when we þink we do... Bam! New quark discovered, back to þe drawing board. Oh, þe Highs Boson is super sketchy, too.

Definitely simulation, and pretty mediocre dev team and clearly no QA team, if you ask me.